A new childrens book is taking some heat for its controversial message aimed at kids, which says that eating vegan is the loving thing to do.

The book is called Vegan is Love: Having Heart and Taking Action, and its author and illustrator, Ruby Roth  a young, enthusiastic vegan activist  hopes to teach young readers not only about veganism as a diet choice, but also as a moral choice.

Roth explains that Vegan is Love expands upon the message of her popular first book Thats Why We Dont Eat Animals, in which she describes how our daily diet choices affect not just our local communities, but our world as a whole.

In a video promoting the book, Roth says that If we want to move toward an era of solutions, where the planet is healing, people are fed and healthy, there is good in the way we do business, and a reverence for the well being of all living things, then all we have to do is live that life ourselves. The life she is referring to is about putting our love to action with the food we eat, the clothing we wear, the money we spend, and the entertainment choices we make.

Roth explains that although Vegan is Love is a childrens book thats easy to understand, at its core, its about democracy, supply and demand and engaging ourselves in the public realm.

In an interview with The Today Show Nutritionist Heidi Skolnik said that eating a vegan diet is sustaininable and healthy for people at any age, including kids. But that parents should be very conscientious of making sure their children are getting all of the required nutrients that kids their age need, especially b-12, essential fatty acids, iron and protein.

However, the bigger controversy lies at a psychological level and raises the question, Are we saying, then, that if a person is not vegan, theyre about hate? Or that non-vegans arent loving? Some critics are concerned that this book contains a strong moral message that can be potentially damaging to kids if its misinterpreted, and teaches them to fear certain foods.

But if parents take a gentle approach and share this message with their kids in an unbiased way without being forceful, their children are much more likely to make diet and moral decisions for themselves instead of feeling like veganism is the only right choice to make. But make the call yourself. Vegan is Love is available for pre-order online and its official release date is April 24. Suggested age level is 7 and up, and grade level is 2nd and up.

We are human beings. We are born with canine teeth to eat meat. Going veggie is great sometimes. Mandating veggie is mass murder. Children need the fat, protein, amino acids, and base guttural ‘soup’ to survive in life. I truly hate this kind of person. Blind and deform their cats by ‘going veggie’. Killed the friggin cat, okay, on to my neighbor.

I just had a conversation with a couple of save-bambi-liberals the other day. Their total and complete lack of understanding of the relationship between carnivores and herbivores in the wild was absolutely astounding.

I once saw a car with a plethora of moonbat bumper stickers on it. One was actually true - ‘Vegetarians taste better’. Since I am married to a vegan I will attest to the veracity of this statement. ;-)

I have a friend who keeps sending me vegan promotional materials; he's been doing this for decades. I mostly ignore it, although there are positive points in terms of some health concerns, and animal cruelty. (I have no moral objection to killing animals and eating them, but I think there is no justification for cruelty, i.e. the infliction of pain and fear.)

I understand the parents who object to this book object specifically to its proposition: that killing animals is morlaly wrong. I am convininced that that moral proposition is mistaken, but it seems to me that a child at 8 or so ought to be able to understand that different people have different moral ideas, some of them sound and some not.

I 'd object to a school that actively promoted this view. But on the other hand, I wouldn't subject a young child of mine to a school --- period.

20
posted on 05/13/2012 7:09:12 AM PDT
by Mrs. Don-o
("The first duty of intelligent men of our day is the restatement of the obvious." George Orwell)

The other carnivores, or the hunters, serve Man in two ways. Carnivores such as bears, wolves, big cats, etc., naturally limit the population growth of healthy herds and at the same time they help control bacterial and viral diseases. Carnivores moderate disease transmission either by eating the weaker or diseased prey animal, or by eating a diseased pest of that prey animal. Sharks, seals, crabs and other carnivorous fish serve the same purpose in the ocean. Thereby leaving more healthy herds for the consumption of Man. It’s a pretty nifty arrangement. imo

vegetable/wheat farming kills a lot more animals per pound of food, than a feedlot does

A feedlot feeds corn or wheat to animals who are then consumed by humans. There are therefore two levels of cost: first the production of the grain feed and second the raising of the animal.

I am a vegan for health reasons, so I look at this two level procedure in meat production from an economic standpoint. Meat production is a huge waste of economic resources, more than doubling the cost of producing the same nutrients in vegetable form.

Here is a simple complete human diet: pasta and lentils, plus four pills per day (multivitamin, B12, calcium carbonate and Omega 3/6/9).

A feedlot only finishes an animal. Most all of a beef steer’s weight comes from eating grass.

Do you eat grass? Didn't think so.

As for efficiency eating, I simply and matter of factly don't care. I don't eat in order to economize production, because there is absolutely no shortage of production.

People do not go hungry because I had bacon instead of oatmeal. They go hungry because of despotic political systems that control the food supply.

Complete human diets don't require supplemental vitamin pills. A truly simple human diet is a loaded baked potato (butter, sour cream, salt, maybe cheese) a well marbled steak, and a side of brocolli...Yum! Omnivores have nothing to worry about, its all good and natural.

32
posted on 05/14/2012 11:13:12 AM PDT
by SampleMan
(Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)

A truly simple human diet is a loaded baked potato (butter, sour cream, salt, maybe cheese) a well marbled steak, and a side of brocolli...Yum!

Saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium: that diet would put me on two pills per day, one cholesterol-lowering and the other for hypertension. It would also dramatically increase my odds for a cardiac event. But that is just my makeup, and my desire for a long, healthy life.

It did indeed kill my grandfather, he might have made it to 96 if had eaten only shrubs.

I’m sorry that your health does not allow you to eat a normal diet, but that does not change what a normal diet is.

The only diet that has been scientifically proven to increase lifespan is a near starvation diet, but that isn’t the healthiest diet, nor one that many people would choose, even if assured of a 25% increase in lifespan.

Interesting how being healthy, living long, and enjoying life don’t coincide in diet. I think a normal omnivore diet provides the best balance of the three. All things in moderation (if you don’t have a medical condition that requires a special diet).

34
posted on 05/14/2012 12:16:25 PM PDT
by SampleMan
(Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)

The corn and wheat fed to RUMINANTS (who have four stomachs FOR A REASON) is generally not fit for human consumption. Furthermore, cattle GRAZE on land where the topography, climate, and soil, any or all three, make that land unsuitable for crop farming. Supplemented (or not) with feed grain, the cattle can graze, produce meat, dairy products, leather, medicines, industrial glues, and heaven knows what else -- every smidgen of a beef or dairy animal is used for something -- on the same land where all the birds and snakes and foxes and lizards and everything else live pretty much as they were. CROPLAND necessarily entails destroying the habitat of all those critters, AND ON TOP OF THAT generally entails diverting water from other ecosystems to irrigate said crops.

Livestock agriculture is THE MOST EFFICIENT use of natural resources and produces FAR AND AWAY more useful products. I love farming and come from a long, long line of farmers, but also come from a long line of cattle ranchers.

You want to be vegan, fine. You want to subject children to it, that's child abuse. You want to rationalize it as "better for the environment," go ahead and kid yourself, but when you emotionalize it with such false claptrap and cause young girls to adopt a vegan diet because they think its "being nice to animals," YOU bear the responsiblity for all the health problems, including osteoporosis, that those girls will get later. Listen, I've been around vegans and their kids. I'VE SEEN ALL THIS and all the allergy problems and emotional problems those kids have -- taking pills is THE WRONG WAY and THE DUMB WAY to live healthily. And I've seen their parents, adults, continue to insist that two plus two equals five because it should!

I can respect vegetarianism. Veganism is foolish dangerous vanity to the utmost.

I don't support promoting food choices to children. This is a better position today than a decade or so ago, since information about food choices is now available to children through the Internet. That is how I informed myself and any curious mind can do the same. Further, my vegan diet is a health choice, not an ethical one. By removing cholesterol and sodium from my diet, my vegan diet rectified my high LDL cholesterol and hypertension, avoiding lifelong medication and putting me in a lower risk group for insurance purposes. I understand that this only works in about a third of cases, so I am one of the lucky ones.

I need to be careful about making statements about meat production being wasteful, however. As a third generation city-dweller, I read statements like that on vegetarian websites and don't have the background to critically filter their arguments. Thank you Finny and SampleMan for enlightening me, and others.

Sure, veganism is a way to exercise choices in what you eat -- and it is a choice based on the vanity that such a choice is "nice to planet Earth and little furry animals" and the conceit that man can improve God and nature's way of providing good nutrition.

I'm all for people making stupid choices in what they eat. I know I make stupid dietary choices all the time! I'm also for calling veganism what I know it to be as exemplified in the probably dozen or more vegans I've known pretty well over the past 35 years: vain and conceited, "health" claims to the contrary.

Gracious, elegant reply! Therefore I STAND CORRECTED regarding my post 39 in that there are some (very very few) exceptions, and I’m very glad that you’re a “lucky one” for whom this approach works (I once had a roommate who had a rare genetic condition where even once piece of bacon would raise her cholesterol level to a dangerous state). But it will be interesting to see if, ten years from now, your vegan-and-artificial-supplement approach hasn’t had some rather serious side-effects, like increased allergies and mental instability (lack of B12 takes years to manifest). One thing I expect is that you’re smart and open-minded enough to introduce meat and animal protein into your diet if and when you need to. Blessings to you.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.